Sig: I still think that the majority of people would simply vote along their Party Ideology, rather than parse the issues.

The people who would use the ballots in the best manner possible would be the people who voted for Perot and Nader; that is, a minority -- and since there are more options, that minority would be even more fractured. The Party Candidates would sail in easily.

Charley -- Think of it like ranking your choice. The candidate that averages the highest ranking wins.

I think what Dok may be getting at (and if he isn't, then I certainly am) is that it doesn't really matter how you vote for something if a system is already in place to make certain that some candidates are more viable than others, based upon factors other than their ideas and competence.

I think what Dok may be getting at (and if he isn't, then I certainly am) is that it doesn't really matter how you vote for something if a system is already in place to make certain that some candidates are more viable than others, based upon factors other than their ideas and competence.

That is to say, corporate money.

The nice thing about approval voting in our era is that, with the internet, this system would level the playing field with corporate shills and would-be dark horse candidates.

Bullshit. It would have the exact same results, just with added recounts.

Why? Because humans identify with tribes. In America, that means liberal/conservative, or in other words democratic/republican. This is why no 3rd party politicians exist above the dog-catcher level, with the few exceptions of those (Jeffords and Liebermann) who gained power first as a party hack, and then for whatever reason went "independent".

Bullocks. Voting for more than one person for a single office just cancels out your own votes.

It doesn't so.

A ballot might look like this:

✓ Frankenstein George Bush✓ Hollow Man✓ Headless Horseman Bill Gates

You'd be indicating that you're okay with the monsters, but not okay with the politicians.

Quote

For example, in a four way race you can:

* Vote for nobody meaning you dislike all of the candidates; * Vote for one candidate indicating your only approved choice; * Vote for two candidates that are both acceptable; * Vote for three candidates meaning that you prefer all candidates other than one that you really don't like; * Vote for all four candidates meaning that you think that all of the candidates are acceptable.

Bullocks. Voting for more than one person for a single office just cancels out your own votes.

It doesn't so.

A ballot might look like this:

✓ Frankenstein George Bush✓ Hollow Man✓ Headless Horseman Bill Gates

You'd be indicating that you're okay with the monsters, but not okay with the politicians.

Quote

For example, in a four way race you can:

* Vote for nobody meaning you dislike all of the candidates; * Vote for one candidate indicating your only approved choice; * Vote for two candidates that are both acceptable; * Vote for three candidates meaning that you prefer all candidates other than one that you really don't like; * Vote for all four candidates meaning that you think that all of the candidates are acceptable.

I think what Dok may be getting at (and if he isn't, then I certainly am) is that it doesn't really matter how you vote for something if a system is already in place to make certain that some candidates are more viable than others, based upon factors other than their ideas and competence.

That is to say, corporate money.

The nice thing about approval voting in our era is that, with the internet, this system would level the playing field with corporate shills and would-be dark horse candidates.

Bullshit. It would have the exact same results, just with added recounts.

Why? Because humans identify with tribes. In America, that means liberal/conservative, or in other words democratic/republican. This is why no 3rd party politicians exist above the dog-catcher level, with the few exceptions of those (Jeffords and Liebermann) who gained power first as a party hack, and then for whatever reason went "independent".

Your basic notion being that no kind of democratic representation can reasonably guide a nation's interests.

My basic notion is that, although imperfect, this system is better than the one we have now, and that any democracy is preferable to no democracy because people ought to be able to nonviolently choose their leaders.